Commons:Deletion requests/2026/06/30

June 30

File:Нестор Махно с дочерью.jpg

Worse version of File:Нестор Махно с дочерью, Париж.jpg aswell as wrongly being sourced as own work. Tomas Guus (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Нестор Махно с дочерью, Париж.jpg
 Comment, image is currently COM:INUSE in bg-wiki, hy-wiki and ru-wiki. I would not say this image is the worse version, as both versions are equally poor in quality. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Bietigheim Steelers logo.svg

Permission needed unless below COM:TOO Germany. Jonteemil (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

How can the club grant permission? I assume it is in the club's best interest for the logo to remain visible on Wikipedia. Thunder-doom-9 (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
 Keep does not appear to be original under German law. That said, @Thunder-doom-9, not every Wikipedia article needs images. If this very word is somehow above the German threshold of originality, the German Wikipedia may or may not permit fair-use uploads. See m:Non-free content. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Publikum Kurzfilmwoche Regensburg © Johannes Liebl.jpg

labeled as own work, which seems to be wrong given that the uploader decided to include copyright with a differnet name than theirs in the title Valeee04 (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Eurovision map 2027-present alt.svg and File:Eurovision map 2027-present alt 2.svg

These files were only used for a discussion regarding how the map for the articles within the scope of WikiProject Song Contests should look like. We have reached a stable map, which can be found at File:Eurovision map 2027-present.svg, hence these files are no longer needed. – ImStevan (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Tagging the other author as well, AxG. – ImStevan (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Stadio Sant'Elia -Cagliari -Italy-23Oct2008.jpg

no FOP in Italy. Krd 06:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I would keep it, because the image is broader than the stadium itself. Theklan (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
 Keep The stadium was built in 1970. It was designed by the architect Antonio Sulprizio and by the engineer Giorgio Lombardi (who was an emplyee of the Municipality). The stadium was commissioned and paid by the Municipality of Cagliari and the en:Italian National Olympic Committee, two public entities (see here and here). Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1991. Friniate (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
I've added the relevant license to the file description. Friniate (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Lays stax brand logo.png

indisputable copyright violation, not in the public domain Industrialerror (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep "indisputable" is a subjective point of view. This logo is below the TOO (and this is a subjective POV as well).
Fma12 (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:64K Moon VT Celestia.png

Not used anywhere, and I don't want it to be TheLostProbe (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  1.  Keep @TheLostProbe, When you publish a file under the CC BY SA 4.0 license, it is permanently and irrevocably placed under that license. Keep in mind that you are the one who published this image, and you did so knowingly. Aelxen (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  2.  Keep Is not entierly useless because it can be used as a free image to illustrate the software Celestia, plus keeping this file isn’t threatening anything Sayoxime (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Puerto Candelaria Official 2026.1.jpg

Labelled own work but attributed to another author, no source/evidence of a CC-0 license. See also these files from the same uploader:

GanzKnusper (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:1360151362 download.jpg

possible copyvio - © Inge Prader - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Михалков в кабинете.jpg

Cropped part of a free depiction of non-free video. Таёжный лес (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Rungtham.png

Copyright violation; This clip isn't Creative Commons License. Jeabbabe (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:20220816 SMP Negeri 37 Jakarta - Tarik Tambang SEMANGKA.jpg

This file has been tagged as advertisiment by PinkDash. Sports events and facilities typically is in the COM:SCOPE. The same applies to:

Converted to regular deletion request for possible feedback. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep, I think these images have educational use of depicting the school "SMP Negeri 37 Jakarta". Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
But the point here that, the school itself didnt have met criteria in this section and already've been deleted, and it just a regular semester event which is always held at the end of semester, and of course according to the filename, the events held by the school itself not like general event that happened in any other schools. Which is more appropriate after the class promotion exam every year by schools in Indonesia PinkDash (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
The translation for English:
The Indonesian Wikipedia consensus has also determined what is not allowed in an article about a school:
1. How to get to school
Information about alternative access routes to a school; whether it requires public transportation, private transportation, or can only be reached on foot.
2. Regional-level achievements
School achievements at the regional level (RT/RW/Sub-district/District/City/Regency/Province).
3. Books and subjects
Books used by a school, for example, whether they change frequently.
4. Unofficial school policies
Things that are not official school policies include popular names or other characteristics of a class, unique things "created" by a particular class (for example, "class xx created new words that are the opposite of the original word"), and so on.
5. The school's vision and mission (or anything similar) should not be included, as they are not encyclopedic. PinkDash (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
This consensus, strictly speaking, isn't relevant for Commons. See COM:SCOPE. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
What is the reason for deletion? The image seems a good picture of a school, which is in scope. Theklan (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

File:BRÅ Totalt anmälda brott i Sverige per 100k 1975-2018.png

It is false! ~2026-37354-08 (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Tudor Țărnă.jpg

Looks AI generated. Gikü (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The image is actually real, but I used an ai enhancer to upgrade the quality because I lost the original high-resolution image. I an upload the original I have in low quality if you want and delete this version. Seblepro123 (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Suhyen, New Juaben North.jpg

Because it is nonsense, absolutely unusable in any article. shrubbery and shoulder, but not road seen Uoeneca (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Сайфуллин Габбас 1950.jpg

Man died in 1951 - can not be original own work of 2026 / 2019. Original author? Source? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by MOHAMEDMINE (talk · contribs)

Professional studio type photos with no exif, PCP. Needs VRT to keep

Gbawden (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Lata Kuat Zero.jpg

I want to send the image again with a better angle and quality, please delete my image. AbacateVoando (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Lata Kuat Zero.jpg

I would also like to delete it because it's showing metadata and I don't feel comfortable showing that. Since I took the photo myself, please delete it. I regret posting it. AbacateVoando (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Monreale (6).jpg

Blurred. We have better Category:Cathedral (Monreale) - North arch of transept Shakko (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Ethan Mbappe.png

AI image of real person per Commons:AI images of identifiable people Эlcobbola talk 13:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Support, I looked for comparisons just to be sure and the "actual" logos and below are definitely disfigured.
TBJ10RH (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Ladislao Bonus bust bas-relief

As seen in one of the images, the artwork was signed by w:en:Anastacio Caedo and bears the year "1980." Copyright-wise, too recent to fall out of his posthumous copyright. Caedo hasn't yet died for more than 50 years under PH law or 70 years under US law. There is no Freedom of Panorama under the Philippine copyright law that would have permitted free uses and exploitations of public landmarks and monuments throughout the country.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Monreale (7).jpg

Blurred. We have good Category:Cathedral_(Monreale)_-_Crossing_ceiling Shakko (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Juliana of Norwich.jpg

very bad quality, very low resolution, this file has to be mirrored, there are many better files in Portrait of a Woman with a Winged Bonnet (van der Weyden) Oursana (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Suspect AGB in 2022.jpg

Copyright violation. The file comes straight from Suspects instagram. YeetV4 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:UIPM-LOGO.png

Fictional organization and LTA Badak Jawa (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Additional: the uploader was blocked by the former Indonesian Wikipedia administrator on June 25, 2019, for advertising/spam links to external sites/links. Please see their user page here 𝄃𝄃𝄂Badak𝄂𝄀𝄁𝄃 🕭 06:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Vaxon squirrel.jpg

There are many variations on this image (visible on TinEye) from before this was uploaded. They have the same base squirrel image, but different figures riding them. Whatever the meme, it is unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder of the underlying image. This also seems likely out of scope, and has a watermark in the top-left. CMD (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by MonikaKubasakova (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logos.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Lohith NITC (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logos.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Gmaincent (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logo and chart.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Puggardsgade ca 1915.jpg

Original found Thomas Dahlstrøm Nielsen Tdn70 17:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Agitation leaflet spb governor elections 1996.jpg

Copyright violation. Таёжный лес (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Adarsh Singh Rajawat.jpg

This upload by mistake Asrajawat001 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

This upload by mistake Asrajawat001 (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:ElSujeto Oficial (IMAGEN).jpg

Possible copyvio: Use of Adobe stock images for the notes as per Tineye, VRT requested CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:JS MUSIC.png

Possible copyvio: Logo above the threshold of originality, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Lexy Feltus (talk · contribs)

Copyvio Rule 34 images of random cartoon characters, OOS

Dronebogus (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:0dnud7gl5es41SHHP.png

Uncertain copyright status. The uploader claims the image to be their own work, but this is a well-circulated edit of the political compass (e.g., This Reddit thread that features the image predates the upload by ~4.5 years). A reverse image search will reveal numerous results, most of them predating the upload's date of November 16 2024. I'm not sure who the original author is, or what terms they published this image under, but I feel confident in saying that it isn't SHPP. — Alhadis (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:181 Sem Título 20260630165438.png

I tried to submit a new version of an image that already exists on Commons, but I accidentally ended up submitting it in this format. Questionadora ávida (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Little E's Eatery Logo.png

COM:OOS non-notable logo, not in use — Wracking ( talk / contribs / uploads ) 21:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Delete dont seem to find any info online.--RoyZuo (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Cheng Heng cropped.jpg

Uploaded the false version, would be nice if it would be deleted.MarketFruit (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Delete AI-upscaled version of File:Cheng Heng in September 1970 cropped.jpg, the unadulterated file should be the one in use. TansoShoshen (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Childcare over the past several decades in the US.tif

This is a duplicate image and should not have been uploaded. Bioanthropologist1 (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Mugshot of David Fernando Mancia Orellana - January 24, 2026.jpg

Dismissed. No charges filed. Dmzeee (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The case being dismissed doesn't change the copyright status of a work from Florida PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Mugshot of David Fernando Mancia Orellana - January 24, 2026.jpg

Dismissed. No charges filed. The State of Florida hereby declines to file charges in this case and therefore enters this "NO ACTION" for one or more of the following reason(s): State cannot prove case beyond a reasonable doubt. State declines prosecution. Dmzeee (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The case being dismissed doesn't change the copyright status of a work from Florida PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Ailsa Chang.jpg

There is no indication the source is copyright compliant. Hadal (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy delete COM:NETCOPYVIO — Wracking ( talk / contribs / uploads ) 04:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Hartley’s Crocodile Adventures Tickets.png

Purely promotional - COM:ADVERT 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 23:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:The Disney Channel 1983.svg

Misinformation with the previous Diego's Media Group (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per COM:TOO US. ~2026-32130-13 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The Sopranos Family Tree

These files are derived from videos published on HBO's official verified YouTube channel. At the time of this request, the videos are still marked with YouTube's Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. However, the videos consist of compilations of excerpts from The Sopranos, a television series that is otherwise commercially distributed under standard copyright.

While it is legally possible for a copyright holder to release a specific work under CC BY while retaining exclusive rights over the underlying work in other contexts, such licensing by a major television studio appears unusual. I am therefore requesting a community review of whether the CC BY designation on YouTube should be regarded as sufficient evidence of a valid free license for these files.

I am not asserting that the license is invalid or that it was applied in error. Rather, I am asking the community to assess whether the available licensing evidence is sufficient for Commons, or whether additional verification (such as archived evidence of the YouTube license or confirmation through VRT, if considered appropriate) would be desirable.

This request is made solely to clarify the licensing status of these files. --Espandero (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep - HBO clearly released the photos. It is extremely hard (knowing YouTube) to accidentally pick the wrong licence. The default licence is copyrighted - so they clearly went out of their way to change this. Wheatley2 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros sprites

Hi. These were on Wikipedia:List_of_content_strangely_available_on_Wikimedia_Commons and I have to agree it is strange they are on the Commons. I wanted to see what the given justification was, and it is:

Public domain This image of simple geometry is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.
Heptagon
Heptagon

But these are not mere simple geometry. They are artistic, stylised depictions with colour, shading, and in the case of the star, there are even eyes. It's very hard for me to imagine these wouldn't be considered as artistic works in a legal dispute. I think this is an abuse of the Template:PD-shape tag, these aren't diagrams of simple polygons. --光の夢 (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Support deletion of coin and star – The pixels of these sprites are identical, even if their colors are changed. I really thought I made a much more distinct coin than this, I'm very sorry. The pallet of Mario Bros. sprites aren't even set in stone in the original game in the first place, so an argument that the changed pallet makes this alright doesn't work. It is very clearly a direct copy of a copyrighted image. ~Mable (chat) 06:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    To expand on my argument for the deletion of the star, I am very much concerned about the exact specifics of the design. the 2-pixel center, the stubby 'arms', the exact position of the every pixel. The exact pixel widths 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 14, 14, 12, 10, etc... The three-high eyes positioned exactly there. I think the total design is probably more complex and more specific than that of the coin. ~Mable (chat) 12:48, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
    I actually fail to see how positions of lines justify a protection. The following reasons make it hard to believe we can see a copyrightable reason in any jurisdiction:
    1. The technical limits back then were very narrow. So creativity could not be expressed as today. I don't see individual creativity here. The idea of a star with eyes itself is not copyrightable, the design of the same in this case is the easiest possible implementation. IF this design would be copyrightable, changes are very high a human being on the world would have scribbled a star with eyes before. This would mean Nintendo caused copyright infringement without knowing, which would be ridiculous. If I want a star with eyes (idea!), this is one of the very few technical possible shapes. We miss shadow effects, 3D effects, color gradients, unique shapes, ... The pixel raster is so small that any other combinations are hard to implement. Simple shapes are exempt for copyright protection.
    2. Stars and stripes are public domain, 5-pointed stars, too. Two pixel rows also. The combination of such does not justify a protection. All elements alone and together are too trivial.
    3. We talk about copyright, not trademark. The star as such may enjoy trademark protection, but copyright needs creative input.
    4. I can invert your argument and say the coin is more complex, as the coin simulates 3D effects where the star is even completely symmetrical. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
    Saying these assets cannot have individual creativity is nonsense. You try making one of these assets without any references and see if they end up exactly the same as the Mario one. No? Then there is creativity there. Zxcvbnm (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    Just for the record, with regards to the brick texture specifically, I by chance created the exact same pattern (at higher resolution) just two months ago. This is a unique and universal way to create a tiling brick pattern. As suggested above, I would never be able to create the star or coin like the Mario sprites without a reference or by chance. They are very specific. They are no less unique than any other 16x16 sprite. ~Mable (chat) 09:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
    The page Commons:Threshold of originality catalogs many highly specific 2D works, even moreso than these sprites, which nonetheless had their copyright officially rejected by the US Copyright Review Board. In the case of the star sprite, there are potentially tens of thousands of different ways to depict, using two rectangles, eyes on a starː smoother star points, different sizes or exact placement, color, shading, etc. But The examples of rejected applications show that three simple shapes in a limited arrangement (star with eyes), even with such variability, would be practically impossible to copyright. Similar with the coin. Its strongest element is the shading effect, but said effect has been held to be below de minimis standards by the copyright office. Cauliflowerblackhole (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep brick – This texture/pattern is much too basic and universal to be under copyright. ~Mable (chat) 06:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
I would say I can reluctantly agree with the deletion of the coin, but the brick and star are too generic. Adding geometric, symmetrical eyes isn't really a substantial addition to a geometric shape, I'd argue. RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
SuperTux has also a star with eyes, but the shape is more complex with 3D effects --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep For wall and star. The star is simply a star with two lines, I am almost sure that someone drawed this before Nintendo created this shape. The wall pattern is also included in Microsoft Word patterns --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all In my opinion, they are all discernibly creative art from a Mario game, even if simplistic. Besides, why exactly are these images needed in an encyclopedic context? This doesn't seem like good-faith uploading in line with Wikipedia Commons aims, nor should this kind of thing be standard operating procedure unless Wikipedia likes spending plenty of donation money fending off Nintendo's lawyers.Zxcvbnm (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    We're not on "Wikipedia Commons", we're on Wikimedia Commons, "encyclopedic context" doesn't apply here cause Commons is not Wikipedia. If you meant these pictures lack educational purpose (per COM:EDUSE's broader definition of the word, "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"), that's a different story. Octolin (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keepit.This is a pattern composed of very basic geometric shapes; it doesn’t even have enough pixels. I don’t think this meets the criteria specified in the Copyright Protection Conditions. --花开夜 (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
 Keep all In my opinion, many examples on the page for Commons:Threshold of originality have more creative elements than these sprites. Just that the sprites are "artistic, stylised depictions with colour, shading" does not automatically raise them above the threshold of originality. Many logos also have artistic merit with with even more distinctive color/shading stylization, and more elements to them, yet are still accepted to be public domain. For instance, the Pokemon logo has been nominated for deletion 3 separate times, and each time its public domain status has been upheld.
To assume that adding two rectangles as eyes to a star shape makes it copyrightable is a standard much, much lower than that set by the threshold of originality. Also, whatever distinctiveness there may be in these sprites may fall under "look and feel", which the copyright office does not factor into a work's copyrightability. Cauliflowerblackhole (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
It's important to note that saying the Pokemon logo's public-domain "status" has been "upheld" solely because it has been kept in a discussion is preposterous. Wikimedia editors don't have legal standing, so it would only be decided for real were Nintendo to ever send a cease-and-desist to Wikimedia. I suppose we shall see if the other shoe ever drops, but I certainly don't ever see Nintendo saying they are fine with Wikimedia claiming these things are not copyrighted. Zxcvbnm (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
I say it is upheld because that is itself the standard of the commons. Yes, the most literal standard of "upheld" is in the copyright office or the courts. Yet it is impossible to hold the tens of millions of items on the Commons to the standard that they must be rejected if it has not literally been deemed PD by a court. By that standard, Wikipedia could not do any fair use image hosting at all, since fair use is likewise determined in courts. So the standard of "Upheld" is essentially based on a reasonable appraisal. Each round of deletion discussions is built on a reasonable appraisal of the facts of the individual item and applicable law/precedent. That is what happened with the Pokemon logo, where specific law and precedent were cited to reasonably conclude it was public domain. It should also be noted that the commons has an "Items with copyright claims" category, where files are kept in spite of copyright claims because their PD status is nonetheless accepted. Cauliflowerblackhole (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
Also, briefly adding on, it is wholly reductive to engage with my comment solely by talking about the Pokemon logo, whereas the principles stated are true regardless of whether you contest the specific example. There are countless examples I could have used. I picked the Pokemon logo because I commented on it myself last time. Cauliflowerblackhole (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

AI upscales by A. C. Tatarinov

A. C. Tatarinov has uploaded a lot of AI upscaled versions of lower res images, which often distorts them and even adds elements and other artifacts not present in the originals, and without tagging them as such. Since then, Commons policy seems to discourage that, so I believe it is time to delete them; A. C. Tatarinov has been notified and seems to not upload such images anymore. See also Village Pump discussion here: There are a lot, so they will be added to the list here gradually. --FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

 Delete all ... unfortunately many are INUSE, and the low-res images are not uploaded, see Category:Dugongidae. Taylor 49 (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Looks like the original dugong image is up File:Neogene_dugong_ecosystems.jpg with all the animals in it, though an AI upscale of it had to be reverted there also. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
@User:FunkMonk: Well, after the revert that image is not upscaled anymore, but still trashed by JPEG. I uploaded the original without JPEG atifacts: File:Neogene dugong ecosystems (pone.0031294.g002).png. Now it is bit-identical to the original from journals.plos.org. The original is no way low-res, there is no point to waste resources by upscaling. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Neogene dugong ecosystems.jpg. -- Taylor 49 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

AI upscales by A. C. Tatarinov

A. C. Tatarinov has uploaded a lot of AI upscaled versions of lower res images, which often distorts them and even adds elements and other artifacts not present in the originals, and without tagging them as such. Since then, Commons policy seems to discourage that, so I believe it is time to delete them; A. C. Tatarinov has been notified and seems to not upload such images anymore. See also Village Pump discussion here: There are a lot, so they will be added to the list here gradually. --FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

 Delete all ... unfortunately many are INUSE, and the low-res images are not uploaded, see Category:Dugongidae. Taylor 49 (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Looks like the original dugong image is up File:Neogene_dugong_ecosystems.jpg with all the animals in it, though an AI upscale of it had to be reverted there also. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
@User:FunkMonk: Well, after the revert that image is not upscaled anymore, but still trashed by JPEG. I uploaded the original without JPEG atifacts: File:Neogene dugong ecosystems (pone.0031294.g002).png. Now it is bit-identical to the original from journals.plos.org. The original is no way low-res, there is no point to waste resources by upscaling. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Neogene dugong ecosystems.jpg. -- Taylor 49 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)